Annex rules proposals

[Gene Maurice]

Excuse me. Wasn't there a survey in which the membership indicated that they
wanted the maneuver schedules to be placed in an annex?????? Why are we
rehashing this????

Gene Maurice
Plano, TX
AMA 3408
NSRCA 877

  -----Original Message-----
  From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
Behalf Of ronlock
  Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 8:37 PM
  To: discussion at nsrca.org
  Subject: Re: Annex rules proposals


  I too agree with much in Troy's post.  I think there is
  considerable merit in leaving the maneuver schedules and
  descriptions n the AMA Rule book where they are easily
  found by would be new pattern pilots.   Particularly the
  AMA Sportsman and Intermediate classes.   We can still
  change them at the 3 year AMA cycle as may be needed.
  Though, since pilots progress through those classes,
  they don't need to change very often.   Masters Advanced
  may need changing more often since pilots don't progress
  through them as quickly.  Still, I'm not sure that more often
  than 3 years is all that important.
  Ron Lockhart
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Thomas C. Weedon
    To: discussion at nsrca.org
    Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 5:22 PM
    Subject: RE: Annex rules proposals


    I thought more of you would have read Troy Newman's reply to the list.
He has made some very good points that are worthy of your consideration.
Therefore I am resubmitting his post below. I have mixed feelings about any
annex proposal for the same reasons that Troy submitted. Why don't we look
at what could become a "Pandora's Box" with this annex idea and see if there
is not some better idea? What is so bad about a maneuver schedule change
every 3 years for the Masters class with occasional changes in the other
schedules as needed. An annex could lead to some VERY WEIRD maneuver
schedules in the future. Have any of you studied the IMAC schedules lately?
You would see what I mean, if you had. They just don't FLOW! Nothing pretty
or graceful about them. Too much jumping around with a reduced number of
center maneuvers.  Just my opinion, Tom W.

    Troy Said;......
      As for the Annex I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I don't
want the annex. I feel that the Rules Survey supports that we don't need
it....

      The reason Every question regarding how often the rules need to be
changed was voted as 3 yrs to be the winner......

      Well guess what folks 3 yrs is what we have now!

      Also having viewed the IMAC process over the last few years its not
perfect.....In fact I think its lousy....

      #1  The sequences don't build skills they just change...and get more
maneuvers as you climb the ranks. We worked very hard to make our sequences
grow the skills of the pilot not just give a longer laundry list to perform.

      #2  The changing every year of the sequences or often changing of the
sequences doesn't provide a good benchmark in the pilots assessment of his
skills. Currently here in the Colorado area we have some guys flying in
classes well above their skill level...The reason is there was no
competition in the same class so I moved up to get some....The result has
been a very wide gap in the proficiency of the pilot. Take the top class in
Pattern Masters or F3A and compare the pilots skill to the average advanced
or Unlimited IMAC pilot and at least locally the degree of perfection is
lower....Not saying that the IMAC flyers are not as good of flyers just that
the achievement of perfection in the sequence is lower.....There are two
main reasons in my opinion for this...as stated in #1 the skill
building...and secondly the changing in sequences is every year and pilot
doesn't get the chance to perfect the skills in the current schedule then
must move on to a new schedule.....

      #3 as addressed in Eric's note the Who is going to design the
sequences and maintain them?   The NSRCA Board?  Come on I've been on the
Board and there are the same issues within the board picking the sequences
as having this list design them....Just my opinion.

      #4  If the current system is in place as it is now then a motivated
individual can rally support and get a sequence submitted with other flyers
support to change the sequence. This was road I chose with our individual
submission of a choice for the 2005 Masters sequence....

      #5  We just changed things.....We have not had a good feel for what
the changes accomplished on the last rules cycle we have only flown them for
1 year...and before that year was over we are wanting the permission to
change them again....I don't think this portrays us as a responsible group
that has proven we are in control of the situation.

      IMAC is not a perfect situation. They have grown very fast in a short
time and have become very aware that the growing pains sometimes hurt. I
also think that in the future the changes we see in IMAC will become less
and less and the stability will come with time.....In pattern we already
have a huge amount of stability.  I can travel from sea to shinning sea and
get the same quality of judging and adherence to the rules as I can locally.
This is not the case in IMAC the rules have changed so frequently and
localities have their own ways of doing it and you don't get the same types
of flying performance of even the same judging criteria across the country.
      This in my opinion is a strong asset to both the AMA and the
NSRCA......I'm not ready to toss this stability out in the sake of change.
Imac is not a perfect world and the decline in pattern numbers is not
because of IMAC stealing our flyers as some suggest or believe.

      A wise man once told me  "Never change for the Sake of Change. It
breeds instability."
      Snip- when all of this post was left on, the list rejected it - too
big.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021210/7f4666e5/attachment.html